Gor |
Giver of truth.
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 1925
|
Loc: The basement
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
#262720 - 08/22/11 08:05 PM
|
|
|
but it's not a picture of my license plate, 2 of the numbers were transposed. I guess the officer who signed it inadvertently committed perjury.
|
Oh for Pete's sake.
loser.com
|
|
redk9258 |
Regular
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 3968
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: Gor]
#262726 - 08/22/11 08:30 PM
|
|
|
Those things should be illegal. I've read you don't have to pay them and there's nothing that can be done about it. That may depend on the state though.
|
|
|
Foxhack |
Furry guy
|
|
|
Reged: 01/30/04
|
Posts: 2409
|
Loc: Spicy Canada
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: redk9258]
#262731 - 08/22/11 08:42 PM
|
|
|
> Those things should be illegal. I've read you don't have to pay them and there's > nothing that can be done about it. That may depend on the state though.
So you're saying that you should be allowed to run a red light if nobody is there to see you do it?
Or are you angry that you can't get away with it?
|
|
|
redk9258 |
Regular
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 3968
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: Foxhack]
#262742 - 08/22/11 10:06 PM
|
|
|
> So you're saying that you should be allowed to run a red light if nobody is there to > see you do it?
Yep. No really, I actually stop at red lights. I do occasionally blow through a stop sign out in the country where you can clearly see nothing is coming.
Where do you draw the line at this shit? Maybe your car can be programmed to know when you exceed the speed limit and print a ticket right out of your dash! > Or are you angry that you can't get away with it?
If a human cop doesn't catch me, than it should be a freebie. It's not murder ya know.
|
|
|
GatKong![Moderator Moderator](//www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/images/mod.gif) |
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
Posts: 5907
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: redk9258]
#262745 - 08/22/11 10:10 PM
|
|
|
Personnally, I think the Precog Unit should fastrope down onto your windshield and arrest you BEFORE you break the law and blow through the red light.
|
|
|
redk9258 |
Regular
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 3968
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: GatKong]
#262751 - 08/22/11 10:30 PM
|
|
|
I have a friend who used to live in the country. Down the country road was a 4-way stop. Another friend and I used to keep score of who would run that stop sign the most. Sometimes the corn would grow quite high. You couldn't see anything unless, well, you stopped and looked. Luckily we never met up at that intersection from different sides!
The guy that lived there was always kind of a gear head. I was riding with him once and noticed that every time he stepped on the brakes a rocker switch under his dash would light up...
Me "What the hell is that for?... to let you know when a brake light is out or something?" Him "No, it's so I can turn my brake lights off." Me "What the fuck would you want to do that for?" Him "So the cops cannot see my car in the dark if you have to outrun them." Me "Really? Do you do this often?" Him "No. I read about it in Hot Rod magazine and it sounded cool."
Later that summer we were going to go somewhere and he wanted me to drive.
Me "Where's your car?" Him "It's hidden in the garage." Me "Why?" Him "I outran a cop last night. I flew down the road 100MPH, turned off the lights, and brake lights. I flew in the garage and put the door down. The cop flew past my house with his lights on. I not driving that car for a couple of weeks!" Me "No Shit?" Him "No shit, it's true!" Me "Wow!"
I have to say, he always had bigger balls than me!
|
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: redk9258]
#262761 - 08/23/11 12:25 AM
|
|
|
> If a human cop doesn't catch me, than it should be a freebie. It's not murder ya > know.
So in your opinion Robocop doesn't count?
|
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: Foxhack]
#262774 - 08/23/11 03:01 AM
|
|
|
> So you're saying that you should be allowed to run a red > light if nobody is there to see you do it?
Yes, because I have a brain.
I would like to think that anyone who receives a license to operate a ground missle vehicle is also intelligent enough to make that sort of decision.
[Ever heard the Adam Sandler bit "The Peeper"? Read this in that voice. ;] "Red light. Damn. Stopped. No one around. No one behind me. No one coming from the opposite direction. No one approaching from the left. No one approaching from the right. Not turning green. Flat farmland. I can see for a mile and a half in all directions. The human brain is the most powerful processor on the planet. Sitting here waiting on an expensive egg timer. Jackass..."
|
|
|
Gor |
Giver of truth.
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 1925
|
Loc: The basement
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: redk9258]
#262777 - 08/23/11 05:14 AM
|
|
|
> Those things should be illegal. I've read you don't have to pay them and there's > nothing that can be done about it. That may depend on the state though.
When the red light violation envelope arrived, I thought it was from a questionable maneuver I made on the way to see McCartney while driving my wife's car. Then, I open it up and see it's for my car, not my wife's, issued by a town I didn't recall driving through. I thought,"What's she done?" Included on it are 3 really crappy, dark photos of an SUV. Finally, my eyes find the license plate in the 3rd picture, and it's not mine. The picture is also of a Toyota, which is not the make of my vehicle. WTF.
The cop who issued the ticket wasn't in today. Hopefully, I can take care of this without having to send in some notarized letter contesting the ticket. The annoying thing is that I will have had to spend any time on this at all, including this bin post.
|
Oh for Pete's sake.
loser.com
|
|
Tomu Breidah |
No Problems, Only Solutions
|
|
|
Reged: 08/14/04
|
Posts: 6819
|
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: aavada]
#262781 - 08/23/11 05:49 AM
|
|
|
|
DMala |
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
Posts: 3989
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: Foxhack]
#262782 - 08/23/11 05:50 AM
|
|
|
> So you're saying that you should be allowed to run a red light if nobody is there to > see you do it? > > Or are you angry that you can't get away with it?
The biggest problem with red light cams is that they tend to be used more for revenue generation than for public safety. A lot of them are operated by private companies who are basically motivated only by profit. There have been several cases where whoever is operating the camera has been caught monkeying with the light timings to bring in more money. There have also been a number of studies showing that the cameras either have no impact on public safety, or they have a slight negative impact due to increased read-end accidents or shunting traffic to other intersections not equipped to deal with the traffic. Add in the kind of sloppy, lazy BS that Gor is dealing with, and I think most people would agree that red light cams are a bad thing.
|
|
|
Tomu Breidah |
No Problems, Only Solutions
|
|
|
Reged: 08/14/04
|
Posts: 6819
|
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: DMala]
#262783 - 08/23/11 05:55 AM
|
|
|
> > So you're saying that you should be allowed to run a red light if nobody is there > to > > see you do it? > > > > Or are you angry that you can't get away with it? > > The biggest problem with red light cams is that they tend to be used more for revenue > generation than for public safety. A lot of them are operated by private companies > who are basically motivated only by profit. There have been several cases where > whoever is operating the camera has been caught monkeying with the light timings to > bring in more money. There have also been a number of studies showing that the > cameras either have no impact on public safety, or they have a slight negative impact > due to increased read-end accidents or shunting traffic to other intersections not > equipped to deal with the traffic. Add in the kind of sloppy, lazy BS that Gor is > dealing with, and I think most people would agree that red light cams are a bad > thing.
I recall a report or something about people being more likely to not get caught or the wrong person being "caught" (like in Gor's case -probably) if license plates have certain numbers/letters that can be confused with other numbers/letters.
Like B and 8, C, O and Q, I and 1... or whatever.
|
LEVEL-4
|
|
DMala |
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
Posts: 3989
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: Tomu Breidah]
#262785 - 08/23/11 06:12 AM
|
|
|
> I had the thought once... We have Stop Signs where we Stop, make sure the way is > clear, then Go. And a stop sign never changes and we can go when it's clear. So why > not be able to go if the way is clear even if the 'LIGHT' is still red?
I think the general idea is that a traffic light is used in places where a stop sign is not adequate, due to poor visibility, high speeds, or heavy traffic. A lot of lights will flip to flashing at night, when traffic is minimal. > And other times I think I should just make a right hand turn, then a U-Turn and go > straight instead of waiting for a left turn light to change.
There was an area I used to drive through quite a lot, here: http://g.co/maps/huqr I think the two curved cutouts were meant to allow trucks to enter and exit the parking area from the highway, but there were no signs saying their use was restricted. If you were the first car at the light heading west on Cambridge St., you could make a legal right on red onto the on ramp, take the upper cutout and jump onto the off ramp, then merge back into Cambridge St., beating the light. I don't know if it was 100% legal, but I did it many times and never got pulled over for it.
|
|
|
redk9258 |
Regular
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 3968
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: DMala]
#262786 - 08/23/11 06:25 AM
|
|
|
There is a shit hole suburb of St. Louis named Charlack that sets up a speed camera on a bridge that takes pictures of cars on the interstate below. They have about 100 feet (really) of this interstate that they have jurisdiction of. When the news crews asked why they are doing this and is it only for revenue, they said no. It is because it is a dangerous stretch of highway and there are too many accidents. They are full of shit. It is completely for revenue. They probably cause accidents from people hitting the brakes when they see the fucking camera. When driving on I-170 you can actually see three city signs at once about 100 feet apart. They all managed to get a little slice of this highway so they could give out tickets on it. I personally don't think small towns should have any jurisdiction on an interstate. It should be State patrol only.
|
|
|
|
|
> I personally don't think small towns should have any jurisdiction on an interstate. It should be State patrol only.
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
|
|
Jdurgi |
Regular
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 1009
|
Loc: NEW England, CT
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: Gor]
#262848 - 08/24/11 02:00 AM
|
|
|
> > Those things should be illegal. I've read you don't have to pay them and there's > > nothing that can be done about it. That may depend on the state though. > > When the red light violation envelope arrived, I thought it was from a questionable > maneuver I > made on the way to see McCartney while driving my wife's car. Then, I open it up and > see it's > for my car, not my wife's, issued by a town I didn't recall driving through. I > thought,"What's she > done?" Included on it are 3 really crappy, dark photos of an SUV. Finally, my eyes > find the license > plate in the 3rd picture, and it's not mine. The picture is also of a Toyota, which > is not the make > of my vehicle. WTF. > > The cop who issued the ticket wasn't in today. Hopefully, I can take care of this > without having > to send in some notarized letter contesting the ticket. The annoying thing is that I > will have had > to spend any time on this at all, including this bin post.
If the traffic violation ticket was filled out incorrectly, at least here in CT, you can have it nullified on the basis of a technicality. A nice little law that was made regarding other legal documents, but the traffic tickets fall under the guise of it and to change the law to exclude traffic tickets would require a great deal of other paperwork for the government that they are too lazy to do.
I was able to fight a ticket based upon an argument that it was only written to generate revenue and not as a means of public safety. Quite a few years ago, a road in the area that there are no houses on was closed after flooding took out the pavement and the town didn't have the funds to dig it all up and re-pave the road. However, even though the road was closed, they still left up the stop signs at the T-intersection where it meets up with a straightaway. One day, I was driving down the straightaway and knowing that the road on the right was closed, just drove through the stop sign. A cop was sitting there waiting to pull someone over, and got me. He wrote me at ticket for running a stop sign and I said that the road is closed so there's really not an intersection there, so what is the purpose of stopping? The cop said "I don't care. You ran a stop sign and now I am writing you a ticket."
I pleaded "not guilty" to the ticket and in my submission to the state I indicated that the road at that stop sign was closed and therefore the stop signs in place by the town serve no purpose with regards to public safety and are simply a means of generating revenue. I stated that there is no logical reason for me to have stopped and that my lack of stopping posed absolutely no risk to public safety at all. The state agreed with me and threw out the ticket. Since then, the town has just re-opened the road in order to continue to generate ticket revenue. You'd have to be an idiot to drive on the formerly closed road, so this is the town's way to get around the problem.
|
--------------------------------------------------
I am just a worthless liar.
I am just an imbecile.
I will only complicate you.
Trust in me and fall as well.
|
|
|
LOL!
[Re: redk9258]
#262881 - 08/24/11 11:11 AM
|
|
|
That sounds exactly like something the Duke Boys would do down in Hazzard County.
|
|
|
Gor |
Giver of truth.
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 1925
|
Loc: The basement
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Received a red light photo violation notice in the mail today
[Re: Jdurgi]
#262895 - 08/24/11 04:02 PM
|
|
|
> If the traffic violation ticket was filled out incorrectly, at least here in CT, you > can have it nullified on the basis of a technicality. A nice little law that was made > regarding other legal documents, but the traffic tickets fall under the guise of it > and to change the law to exclude traffic tickets would require a great deal of other > paperwork for the government that they are too lazy to do. >
I spoke to the cop twice yesterday, the first time he said I was right and he would take care of it. The second time he said he took care of it and apologized for the inconvenience. Hopefully, that's the end of it.
|
Oh for Pete's sake.
loser.com
|
|